Rules of the House Need Change

paul - Sun, 10/10/2010 - 10:36

In the last few years there have been repeated mentions by major party politicians about "reaching across the aisle". This refers to one or more major party members, currently Republican or Democratic, attempting to reach a compromise or agreement with the opposing party.

This kind of language has arisen from the traditional organization in the House of Representatives into what is known as a two party system. In a body that operates as a two party system there are generally only two possible outcomes or a compromise between the two viewpoints possible, exuding other possibilities. What we are left with is option "A" or option "B" or some combination of the two.

In many human issues this poses no problem such as with crimes. Whether abortion is or is not or whether war is declared or not. These are for the most part yes or no situations where two majority parties can arrive at a conclusion with minor subtleties. Subject of course to the limitations of the Constitution.

Other issues are not so black and white such as taxation and spending where each is judged on a scale of zero to what is now apparently infinity. In these cases two major parties alone may represent viewpoints decidedly toward one end of the scale. Now if these two parties were the only choices available one might suppose that there wouldn't be an issue, but in the United States, while they represent the majority of citizens there is an increasing number who don't align themselves with either (voter registration information, minor parties are included in independents). In recent history our two major parties, Republican and Democratic, have shown an exuberance for spending or indebting the citizens of the United States despite a certain party's rhetoric.

Where do the minority parties and independents gain a voice? Certainly not in the House of Representatives.

The US Constitution Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 stipulates "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings...".

What I don't think the Founding Fathers had intended was that the majority, the two major parties, would create rules that essentially snuffs out dissenting opinion. The current Rules of the House of Representatives definitively establish that only their voices have any weight thereby eliminating minority opinion and allowing what is sometimes referred to as mob rule.

As a Member of the House of Representatives or a citizen I would advocate for a Constitutional Amendment which would require removal from the Rules of the House any preferential treatment given to House Members due to their allegiance to a particular party and or caucuses other than those delineated for Speaker of the House and other order positions as preference based on party allegiance or positions denigrates those not so aligned and thereby makes the representation of their constituents less than equal.

A tough road going against the status quo, but one required to represent the millions who choose independence and principal over the Capulets and Montagues.

Comments

One good thing about having a government is that there are leaders who would lead for the sake of the community. However, there are also disadvantages of having many leaders (referring to other senators, congressman, and other politicians). One of these is the conflict on rules and regulations. Though, there are also times that one party agrees with the idea the other party, and that's another good thing. Yet, there are still several things that need to be changed in the House of Representatives to avoid conflicts and chaos, and those things need to given attention.